I received this email earlier this morning. Portions are reprinted here with permission:

I worked for a Mormon-owned CPA firm… I was fired from my job after admitting that I had voted NO on prop 102.

I was discussing the election on Wednesday with some co workers (who don’t vote) and I asked if you would have voted, what would you have voted on 102? She told me she would have voted no, so I said well at least I’m not the only one on the office that was against it. Then she said wait, what was a no vote for? So I explained 102 to her. She got extremely angry and started saying it was an abomination. So I told her that I had a cousin who was gay that was murdered in a hate crime because he was gay. So I supported it because it was just an equal rights issue. So I just dropped it and didn’t discuss it anymore.

The next day she had a meeting with the owner, and when I came in on Friday they told me that I was being let go. When I asked if it was because of my work performance, the owner said “Let’s just call it a management decision.” I had spoken to the owner just weeks before about the upcoming year and he was telling me he wanted to give me a raise. He had booked me for a tax seminar for the second week of Dec., so I know he was planning on me being employed with him for awhile until this.

I hate to say this but this just might be the beginning of a retaliation effort by Mormon/Pro Anti-Gay Marriage companies against those that voted No on these state amendments. This should be of no surprise of course given how their LDS Church is being protested against and condemned for over a week now by gays and gay supporters. I expected it really.

We need to watch for other situations like this. With the economy the way it is and thousands of jobs being lost almost daily it might put fear in those that are gay/gay supportive for further commenting or displaying ill will towards the LDS Church.

Dave: I’d hesitate at the Marriot. Box Turtle did an article for them earlier. The owner has sworn he didn’t contribute to the prop.s and that the company is gay inclusive. We need to keep our allies and incourage them.

File for unemployment. I’d like to see the employer try to justify the firing in front of the employment commission.

Then file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The EEOC has taken cases and gotten settlements for people who were discriminated against here in AZ because they were not Mormon. Google “University of Phoenix” for the most recent (as in last week) settlement. Additionally, Desert Schools Credit Union also had to settle back in 2005.

This the brutal contrast between opponents of Prop 8 naming individuals who contributed to the effort and then dealing with the consequences, and actively firing people by the proponents of the ballot measures. (Not to mention the heavy handed extortion letters by Yes on 8.)

I can’t imagine putting myself in the spotlight for something like this, so I understand their hesitancy. It would be SO helpful though, to highlight the true blacklisting by those who wish to take away our rights AND silence us. Otherwise, it just seems to be a rumor.

I hope she can come forward, but she’s not an activist. She is just an ordinary, private citizen who now has to find another job to pay her bills — in a very sick economy and in a state which defeated Prop 102. If she’s willing to come forward, you’ll see it here. In the meantime, I promised to protect the details which could lead to her identity.

Too bad. Gay and lesbian “activists” have established that firing a person, harassing them to resign, and threatening them and their businesses financially are perfectly acceptable when you don’t agree with that person’s political beliefs, how they voted, or to whom or what they made contributions.

To watch people whine about it here is nothing short of hilarious when they have been cheering and clapping for it being done to people they don’t like.

mirele, Regarding an EEOC claim, there’s no protection in Arizona against employment discrimination on the basis of political affiliation (or sexual orientation, though it’s not clear that this would be an issue here anyway). Given the current economic climate it probably wouldn’t be too tough for any employer to come up with a plausible reason for firing anyone.

While I sympathize with this woman I have to agree with Walt that without more specifics this is little more than hearsay. Given the fact that she has little legal recourse I don’t see much incentive for her to become a public martyr. Please let us know if there are any further developments, Jim.

For an individual who conceded the SSM was a legitimate civil rights issue, but yet continues to protest about the CSC upholding Californias equality commitments it should not be surprising that you continue to demonstrate such a lack of principled nuances.

In the case of Eckern, he was not fired by the board of the community theater, the artists did not fire him but stated they would withold their contributions to the theater (boycott) â€” leaving the theater free to still perform pieces by other playwrights who made no such demands. Eckern made the personal decision to resign with no pressure by the board (his employer).

What this boils down to is that Timothy Kincaid approves of firing or coercing the resignation of people he doesn’t like because of their political affiliations, religious beliefs, and donations, but insists that employers have no right to fire or coerce the resignations of people he does like because of their political affiliations, religious beliefs, and donations.

Principled individuals would say that it is wrong to harass, threaten to fire, or coerce the resignation of people because of their political affiliations, religious beliefs, and donations regardless of whether you like those beliefs or not.

This article surprises me. I live in Arizona, and have for most of my life. It was no shock to me that 102 passed. I was pleased that it didn’t pass by a wider margin. However, that said, people here tend to be inclusive at least on the surface. I can’t imagine a straight woman losing her job because she cast a losing vote against an anti-gay propisition. I think she must have been in an extremely dysfunctional work place, and I think she’ll also be much happier elsewhere. The Mormons are a strange bunch. The way they treat gay people is really deplorable. And women. And African-Americans. I’m glad we’re finally taking them on. But this is extreme even for them. The Book of Mormon is an add-on text to the New Testament, right, so they are Christians? I wonder if there’s something in that book that just annihilates the Christian principles in the book that comes before. There’s no other possible explanation.

I mean, you wouldn’t want to impose your beliefs on someone else right?

Nothing about ENDA, DADT, or SSM requires you to guide your personal life by anything other than your own beliefs, but yet opposing all of those is the imposition and denial because of a religious belief.

I might add that I’ve had a couple of ex-Mormon boyfriends, straight from the heart of Utah, so I’ve heard the stories. I also dated a guy who was a survivor of the ex-gay movement. He ultimately had a nervous breakdown. I’ve seen what Christian right anti-gay sentiments & policies can do to our men. And it breaks my heart to see everyone so upset over CA. But a little anger and a healthy boycott have never done our community any harm. The gay rights movement started with some cornered drag queens throwing bottles & bricks, after all.

What seems to be missing by Eckern’s resignation is that the board of his theater was never going to be able to fire him. If they chose to fire him for voting for Proposition 8, or contributing to Prop 8 or being a Mormon, they wouldn’t have a leg to stand on in court.

They could have made a backroom deal with him with a golden parachute. Failing that, they were stuck with the prospect of just watching this whole thing play out.

So Dallas Thirty, does that mean we could count on your vote for a federal ENDA inclusive of LGBTs?

No, it does not, for a simple reason; right now, gay and lesbian people have exactly the same employment protections based on sexual orientation as do straight people.

That also helps avoid cases like this, in which an LGBT person uses these laws to perpetuate their own discriminatory behavior.

And also count on your vote for an end to DADT?

Nope; since we do not force female soldiers to sleep with, shower with, or otherwise live in close quarters with male soldiers out of respect for their privacy and the strong possibility that improper relationships or friction due to unwanted sexual attraction may develop, we should not force straight male or straight female soldiers to do so.

Or count on your vote for SSM?

Nope; same-sex and opposite-sex relationships are not biologically, emotionally, or mentally the same, nor are the implications or potential for society the same. Hence, they can and should be treated differently.

I mean, you wouldnâ€™t want to impose your beliefs on someone else right?

Question: since you don’t want to impose your beliefs on someone else, will you support the repeal of the laws banning sex with children, since some people believe it’s perfectly appropriate?

Also, I would point out that Kincaid has written a previous post stating that it is wrong for a group to try to force someone else out of business or punish them simply because that someone else has done something of which that group doesn’t approve.

Obviously, though, Kincaid only expects this to be applied to people he doesn’t like, and to be ignored by himself and his fellow gay “activists”.

Guys… in general I’ve found that it is not a productive use of time to try and debate with North Dallas Thirty. He doesn’t play by the same rules of engagement that we do.

Let him make his statements – as long as they don’t violate Comments Policy – and let them stand on their own. It will save you a lot of frustration and will avoid having this thread hijacked by pigtrails and pointless rhetoric.

You are quite right. And there are no Federal non-discrimination protections for straight people, either; any employer can fire or refuse to hire someone for their simply being straight without consequence. Same for housing.

In short, you already have equality in that respect; you have the same right to hire and fire people based on their sexual orientation as do straight people. If you are foolish enough to use that as a basis for your business decisions, it is your prerogative.

Guysâ€¦ in general Iâ€™ve found that it is not a productive use of time to try and debate with North Dallas Thirty. He doesnâ€™t play by the same rules of engagement that we do.

More precisely, I ask too many questions and hold Kincaid too accountable for his statements.

Timothy has a problem with admitting the fact that he allows gay people to practice the same kind of behaviors that he alleges others do and that he criticizes them for doing. Personally, I wish he’d just admit his bias; it’s not as if it would penalize him to any degree, since most people here agree that gays and lesbians should not be subject to the same rules of conduct that they try to oppose on others.

If you are foolish enough to use that as a basis for your business decisions, it is your prerogative.

If there are no consequences, it wouldn’t be foolish.

Obviously you seem to have no problem if you worked for me in my being able to fire you because I’m gay and you’re straight. Even if you did not know my sexual orientation and I only suspected yours. I’m sure I would be able to hire another employee just as qualified.

And the point had to do with your original comment about religious beliefs. That those should not be a grounds of imposition which is why I think it would be safe to assume you have no problem with gay people being fired.

I also supect that you would have considerable protest to a straight person being fired simply for being straight but would have no bone of contention if gay people fired straight people for no other reason.

There are always consequences. I could fire a worker today, but I now have to cover all that worker’s responsibilities, usually by using overtime by others at a higher rate, and I have to go through the time, expense, and lost productivity of being short a person, finding a person to hire, and then training that person to do the job.

Obviously you seem to have no problem if you worked for me in my being able to fire you because Iâ€™m gay and youâ€™re straight. Even if you did not know my sexual orientation and I only suspected yours. Iâ€™m sure I would be able to hire another employee just as qualified.

Well, first, you got the sexual orientation wrong, so you’re right, you’d only be suspecting. But you probably could just as easily find another person just as qualified, and if you feel that person will do a better job for your company, you’re well within your rights to hire them. I will simply go look for a company that likes my qualifications and whose working environment I prefer, as is my right.

I also supect that you would have considerable protest to a straight person being fired simply for being straight but would have no bone of contention if gay people fired straight people for no other reason.

Nope. Again, principle; I believe that employers should have that right, and that would include gay employers firing or refusing to hire straight people. Having consulted in the gay bar and entertainment industry, there are perfectly valid reasons for preferring LGBT staff over straight ones, both for customer comfort and for worker comfort with the environment.

I mean, you wouldnâ€™t want to impose your beliefs on someone else right?

Question: since you donâ€™t want to impose your beliefs on someone else, will you support the repeal of the laws banning sex with children, since some people believe itâ€™s perfectly appropriate?

You are as aware as I that laws banning sex with children have little do with religious belief but abuses of power and control and otherwise involve individuals in no way similarly situated

I’m laughing, but I’m unsure if the absurdity should be left at, or if you should be pitied for the length you went to in that leap to wilfully misconstrue and distort the discussion with an anology that isn’t in any way shape or form comparable to adult relationships such as marriage, employment, or the military.

In my opinion, accusing a gay person of discriminating against a straight person is fundamentally wrong-headed. If a right-wing whack job has a constitutional right to hate speech, a gay person has a god-given right to call them on it. Also, the Supreme Court protected the BSA right to discriminate. It did not protect promise them the right to discriminate with impunity.

Raising the age of consent is a veiled attempt to assert conservative moral values on youth, queer and youth-led groups told Senators today.

The Senate’s legal affairs committee is studying a Harper government bill that would raise the age of consent from 14 to 16. It will almost certainly pass â€” no political party has opposed it â€” but queer and youth-led groups came out Feb 22 to insist on their sexual freedom.

The proposed changes will have a disproportionate impact on gays, said Richard Hudler of the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario.

“My first lover was 17 years older than me. And this is common [among gay people],” he said.

will you support the repeal of the laws banning sex with children, since some people believe itâ€™s perfectly appropriate?

Your question is a deliberate and wilfull misconstruance of a discussion regarding similarly situated adults in the areas of the military, employment and conscensual adult relationships and with regard to the context of being able to discrimate based on the imposition of religious belief.

I fail to see how your lengthy follow-up quote disputed what I said regarding laws and sex with children.

You are as aware as I that laws banning sex with children have little do with religious belief but abuses of power and control and otherwise involve individuals in no way similarly situated.

I was making no argument to change that law. And the point being was that the law regarding sex with children, even though not germaine to what was being discuseed, was not implemented because some people might hold a belief religious or otherwise in that regard. That the law was implement to protect individuals not similarly situated (i.e. adults and children) and the abuses of power in the dynamics of those relationships. (There is also a need to distinguish or provide clarity as well with regard to children and adolescents which are also not similarly situated in terms of abilities of critical thinking in regard to mature adults.)

With regard to the discussion of anti-discrimination in employment, while I now have some insight into your thinking, I do find it difficult to imagine what the world would be like where people could hire and fire at will because the person being hired or fired is not of their faith/sect, race/ethnicity, sexual/orientation, etc.

As for my assumptions about your sexual orienation, I should not have made those assumptions, I will concede that.

As far as children being within the confines of Folsum that was mentioned, that was a jump to an entirely different scenario, not a part of the same argument you were quoting or the question you asked. That had nothing to do with adults having sex with children, but children being exposed to sexual behavior between adults. An issue more concerned with the realm of parental rights regarding what they choose to expose their children.

And at this point, I’ll defer any more conversation on that subject as it lies to far removed from the topic of this thread.

There are always consequences. I could fire a worker today, but I now have to cover all that workerâ€™s responsibilities, usually by using overtime by others at a higher rate, and I have to go through the time, expense, and lost productivity of being short a person, finding a person to hire, and then training that person to do the job.

Indeed, there would be consequences you mentioned. On the otherhand I am sure that it didn’t escape your attention that we were discussing specifically consequences with regard to the reason for the firing, for instance, the employer is Catholic, the employee is not, no reason not to fire as there will be no legal consequence for that, the employer is gay the employee is not, no legal consequence if they’re fired for that reason or vice versa. That was the context. Not the context of the consequences to the employers profit/loss bottom line.

Your manipulative attempts to manipulate the nature and context of the discourse in this dialogue makes conversation futile.

That the law was implement to protect individuals not similarly situated (i.e. adults and children) and the abuses of power in the dynamics of those relationships.

Again, you are making assumptions based on your own moral values that sex with children is wrong; there are plenty of people, as in the links I cited, that disagree and consider your stance to be “asserting conservative moral values” and “close-minded”.

Why are you imposing your beliefs on them, instead of giving them the benefit of the doubt and keeping your own beliefs to yourself?

With regard to the discussion of anti-discrimination in employment, while I now have some insight into your thinking, I do find it difficult to imagine what the world would be like where people could hire and fire at will because the person being hired or fired is not of their faith/sect, race/ethnicity, sexual/orientation, etc.

Oh, that’s not hard; just look at El Coyote or Sacramento and see how LGBT people are demanding that people be fired or coerced to resign because said people don’t agree with them from a faith and political standpoint. Or you can look and see how the DNC fires people who don’t agree with their attitudes toward sexual orientation.

Of course, those are with laws in place that forbid all of the above….

That was the context. Not the context of the consequences to the employers profit/loss bottom line.

What, exactly, is the cost of violating a discrimination law, if NOT damage to the employer’s profit/loss/bottom line?

Again, given that LGBT people are openly demanding that people be fired and coerced into resigning based on their exercise of their religious beliefs and their political views, both of which are expressly forbidden by law in California, what should be obvious is that LGBT people believe in forcing businesses to behave in a discriminatory fashion — or that these laws give special privileges to LGBT people while allowing discrimination against straight people.

On any other website that I have seen NorthDallasThirty show up, he rants and rants until he gets banned. I was sort of surprised to see his posts here, since I thought he had been previously banned. Mostly he just lobs inflammatory bombs that people feel compelled to respond to, but really you aren’t under any obligation to respond to anything that he posts.

John, I’m sure you have your reasons for ignoring people who disagree with you and trying to convince other people to avoid them.

However, I do not operate under the same intellectual strictures, and am more than happy to engage people in conversations even when I disagree with them, which is why I post on places like this in the first place.

Folks – North Dallas Thirty is (ironically) just flaming here – making incendiary and ignorant comments because he gets his jollies by engaging in conflict. I mean, why else is he here, really? So, folks, I encourage you, treat him like the obnoxious 12 year old at the dinner table that he is – ignore him. I know it’s hard to let stupidity go by… I reflexively give the finger to people who run red lights or turn left across my lane… but you’re just encouraging him. Cut his therapist a break and don’t bother to engage.

For someone who was as logic-impaired as you were in that previous discussion, you really shouldn’t be preaching to others about nuance.

There is no nuance here to talk about anyway.

No one here has demonstrated any reason why someone should employee someone with whom he doesn’t want to associate! The employer decided he didn’t want to work with pro-gay marriage people.

When people boycott a business over an employee’s actions they aren’t just refusing to associate with said business or that employee. They are trying to cost that employee his job. And they are encouraging others to do the same. That is far more than what the Mormon employer did in this story.

Allowing employers and employees to choose what sorts of people they want to work with doesn’t hurt the nation.

However, if every time we disagree with someone’s politics we decide we have to go after his job, we aren’t going to have a very civil society, are we?

“refusing to patronize a business that makes most of its money from gay clients and whose ownership or upper management then gave to fund an anti-gay campaign.”

The problem is these boycotts aren’t about just avoiding a business. They are about forcing people to resign or getting them fired.

But now that I have your attention, perhaps you can finally answer a question I asked on another thread:

What would you think if CMT had specialized in religious theater and Eckern had made a donation to No on 8 which then angered Mormon and other religious writers, actors, and viewers?

What if that anger then prompted him to resign and a Prop 8 supporter wrote â€˜what Eckern really loved the most was adhering to the anti-Christian doctrines of the secular humanist left. Otherwise heâ€™d still be doing all that enriching.â€™

What would you say then?

This question is important because in this hypothetical situation we would have a business that makes most of its money from highly religious clients and whose ownership or upper management then gave to fund what said religious folk percieve as an anti-religion campaign.

Dave said “No one here has demonstrated any reason why someone should employee someone with whom he doesnâ€™t want to associate!”.

By that logic people should be allowed to refuse to hire blacks or jews. We’ve seen how that works out in the past. You sound like a Northdallas forty sockpuppet, on another forum he complained about me supporting Obama because he’s black. If the two of you had your way we’d be back to businesses with “whites only” and “no jews allowed” signs.

Businesses shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate against any employee on a basis other than their ability to do the job.

I am not North Dallas Thirty’s sockpuppet. He forms his opinions independently from me; I form my opinions independently from him.

If you can’t start a conversation with me in a respectful manner, just shut up.

“By that logic people should be allowed to refuse to hire blacks or jews.’

That’s correct. Just as blacks should be allowed to refuse employment to whites and jews to refuse employment to gentiles.

“weâ€™d be back to businesses with â€œwhites onlyâ€ and â€œno jews allowedâ€ signs.”

Really? Refusing service and refusing employment are two different things. But one the service or product offered is only a luxury, what is the harm of allowing businesses to turn a would-be customer away? And why do you assume most Americans are racist jerks in the first place?

I believe in freedom of association for business owners, Priya Lynn. You don’t. If you don’t like this libertarian position, well, tough.

Ahh, no. That command is the last refuge of someone who can’t make a cogent argument.

Dave said “blacks should be allowed to refuse employment to whites and jews to refuse employment to gentiles”.

Not in any society a reasonable person wants to live in. Such bigotry has no place in a just society.

Dave said “Refusing service and refusing employment are two different things.”.

If you’re going to allow businesses to refuse employment on the basis that one is black or gay you have no rationale to prevent them from refusing service on the same basis.

Dave said “But one[sic] the service or product offered is only a luxury, what is the harm of allowing businesses to turn a would-be customer away?”

Once you establish a pattern of refusing service to people based on innate characteristics you start down a slippery slope to injustice and bigotry.

Dave said “And why do you assume most Americans are racist jerks in the first place?”.

I never said most were, but looking at you its not hard to get that impression. Past history shows that given the chance a large percentage of Americans will be racist jerks and deny service to blacks, jews, and gays. Those “whites only” signs weren’t just a figment of people’s imaginations.

Dave said “I believe in freedom of association for business owners, Priya Lynn. You donâ€™t.”.

Your “freedom of association” is a euphemism for bigoted discrimination. I most certainly don’t believe in that. Businesses should be required to hire the person most capable of doing the job regardless of any irrelevant personal characteristics. That’s justice and fairness, something you obviously don’t believe in.

In addition. If a business makes its living off of the public its obligated to serve and hire all members of the public. If people want freedom of association in their private lives that’s another thing altogether.

Not in any society a reasonable person wants to live in. Such bigotry has no place in a just society.

What’s funny is that bigotry and hate is fully supported and endorsed in the gay and lesbian community, as Priya Lynn herself demonstrates on multiple occasions.

Furthermore, given that gay and lesbian people like Priya Lynn are screaming the n-word at black people and in fact are saying that black voters are “either hopelessly bigoted or hopelessly stupid”, it should be obvious that gay and lesbian people like Priya Lynn have no intention of following these laws that they demand.

Perhaps that’s why they’re so terrified and demand laws to restrain other people; they know what they themselves are doing in terms of discrimination and bigotry. Because they are hateful people who discriminate based on religion, sexual orientation, and skin color, they believe everyone else is.

Re: “Furthermore, given that gay and lesbian people like Priya Lynn are screaming the n-word at black people…”

Hold it right there. Has Priya Lynn screamed the n-word at anyone?

Please give time, date, location — any sort of evidence you can find.

Otherwise, you owe Prita Lynn an apology.

This goes to everyone:

So please, don’t ascribe statements, motives and actions to anyone unless that person actually acted as described. Otherwise, that it a gross misrepresentation which is not tolerated here.

While the debates taking place here in the past few weeks are very passionate, we can certainly expect a vigorous, honest debate which reflects those passions. However, commenting on this web site is not a free-form where anyone can say whatever the hell they want. We insist on civility as per our Comments Policy. Those who disagree with it are free to comment elsewhere.

On any other website that I have seen NorthDallasThirty show up, he rants and rants until he gets banned.

Or:

Guysâ€¦ in general Iâ€™ve found that it is not a productive use of time to try and debate with North Dallas Thirty. He doesnâ€™t play by the same rules of engagement that we do.

And:

I never said most were, but looking at you its not hard to get that impression. Past history shows that given the chance a large percentage of Americans will be racist jerks and deny service to blacks, jews, and gays.

In all of those cases, it has been shown perfectly acceptable to make such accusations as long as you structure them semantically.

Hence, I stated “gay and lesbian people like Priya Lynn”. I did not explicitly say that Priya Lynn had; I said that gays and lesbians LIKE Priya Lynn had.

what happened to this woman needs to be as “out there” as the whole El Coyote incident. It would be fun to see a newspaper or two investigating and writing about what happened to her. Is there any way to start something like that off?

I smell a major lawsuit coming on this one. There are going to be several lawsuits filed regarding this and similar issues. The fact that the firm that person worked for would let him go for voting his conscience is absolutely unacceptable. We need to be informed about what this business is. Boycott time.

The Mormon Church used to be a much more progressive religion back during the days when it had far less money prior to the time when Joseph McCarthy’s politics began to poison the American political culture along with Mormon culture as well.

“Not in any society a reasonable person wants to live in. Such bigotry has no place in a just society.”

So tell me, Priya Lynn, just how far are you willing to go to creat your just, bigotry-free society? Are you going to moniter the conversations people have in their homes? Order people to have friends from outside their race? Demand that Orthodox Judaism recognize marriage with non-Jews?

A business is not some official action of society. It exists for the benefit of the business owner. Instead of justifying the state’s intrusion into a employer’s free associations, you simply say ‘bigotry is bad.’

Enough of this silly positivism. Christopher Hitchens could just as easily say ‘religion has no place in a just society’ as a reason for ending freedom of religion.

“”If youâ€™re going to allow businesses to refuse employment on the basis that one is black or gay you have no rationale to prevent them from refusing service on the same basis.

Uh, no, wrong again. Selling someone a bottle of aspirin, for example, is hardly the same sort of association as employing and working with someone.

“Once you establish a pattern of refusing service to people based on innate characteristics you start down a slippery slope to injustice and bigotry.”

That would be the business owner’s problem as he’s the one doing the refusing.

“I never said most were, but looking at you its not hard to get that impression.”

The worry that most people are bigots is inherent in your desire to intrude into the hiring practices of private entities. And thank you for yet another ad hominem crack.

“Past history shows that given the chance a large percentage of Americans will be racist jerks”

Is this past history from 60 years ago or 60 days ago? It does make a difference.

“Your â€œfreedom of associationâ€ is a euphemism for bigoted discrimination.”

That’s like saying that freedom of speech is a euphemism for spouting bigotry. Freedom of speech can be used to support bigotry; it can equally well be used to condemn bigotry. Freedom of association is likewise morally neutral.

I don’t believe in justice because I disagree with you? You really know nothing about me yet you are ready to condemn me over one ethical disagreement. What arrogance. Are you familiar with the phenomenon of psychological projection, Priya Lynn?

“That command is the last refuge of someone who canâ€™t make a cogent argument.”

You are lying by ommission, Priya Lynn. I told you to remain silent “if you canâ€™t start a conversation with me in a respectful manner.” Calling me a sockpuppet is hardly respectful.

Since you have shown yourself to be willing to lie, I am done conversing with you. Permantly.

I personally am glad that we live in a country where firing someone or not hiring them on the basis of race, religion, national origin, sex or disability is illegal. Our country has a very sad history of horrendous bigotry and injustice, particularly with regard to slavery and our genocidal actions toward Native Americans.

I live in a state where firing someone over their sexual orientation is also illegal, and hope someday soon, for that to be the law throughout the USA.

Is the Dave in this thread Davey Benkopf? I wonder because of the pattern of being so sensitive to how he was addressed, and his sudden declaration that he was never speaking to Priya again. There is also the little thing about Orthodox rabbis not recognizing interfaith marriages, which also struck me as just the sort of thing Davey would bring up. Hmmmm.

“If I were an employer, I can imagine letting someone go over some public policy disagreements. If I had an employee who supported partial-birth abortion, for example, Iâ€™d certainly give him the boot.”

This has nothing to do with the ability of someone to do their job. A business exists to make money, not as a social club for the owner. It’s unethical, immoral, and (thankfully), illegal to fire someone for something unrelated to their job.

It is well within the interests of the government to make sure it’s people have fair and equal opportunities for employment.

Besides which, if a business wants to get away with breaking the law, they’ll terminate someone by saying “your services are no longer needed” as we see in this example, it is hard to prove an illegal firing if the employer doesn’t explain the reason for the dismissal. So if it is more important for an employer to work entirely with republicans than it is to have the best workforce possible, then it’s not that hard to achieve that goal.

“Itâ€™s unethical, immoral, and (thankfully), illegal to fire someone for something unrelated to their job.”

Yes and no. As we should all be well aware, it’s actually not illegal in many places to fire someone based on their sexual orientation, gender identity, political affiliation and so on. Even where it is illegal it can be, as you note, extremely difficult to establish that one has been passed over for promotion, not hired in the first place, or terminated for a proscribed reason .

“It is well within the interests of the government to make sure its people have fair and equal opportunities for employment.”

That is a conclusion based on a particular philosophical perspective. Though Dave isn’t terribly persuasive in the way he articulates his position, his view is not as totally off the wall as it might first seem. It’s never wrong to ask ourselves to what extent we should depend on law and the state to regulate aspects of our lives. There are costs to increasing governmental supervision, and it’s worthwhile to keep them in mind.

Some LGBT folks oppose hate crime laws, for instance, not because they support crimes motivated by bias but because they have genuine and legitimate concerns about the implications for freedom of speech and equal treatment under the law.

In the case of employment discrimination, it is really so crazy to ask whether the law is always the most effective way to address the problem? Even without a federal law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation many companies, corporations, universities, and so forth have voluntarily adopted explicit policies which prohibit such discrimination. Does that suggest that other means besides legislation might also be effective, perhaps even more effective?

It’s fair to ask whether making discrimination illegal (as opposed to repealing or overturning laws which actually mandate discrimination, e.g., Jim Crow) incurs costs (both monetary and in terms of more abstract concepts such as liberty) or in some ways may actually impede progress. It’s fair to ask whether measures that were appropriate and effective at one time in one context are the best solution for all times and contexts. There are real data which support arguments on both sides, and the issue isn’t as clear cut as one might think. When we can’t muster cogent responses, then perhaps it’s a good time to reconsider our own unexamined preconceptions and assumptions.

The fact that Dave is a jerk doesn’t mean that his arguments are without merit, although it does make it hard to take them seriously. If you want to see a serious and thoughtful articulation of the libertarian perspective check out Richard Epstein’s book “Forbidden Grounds: The Case Against Employment Discrimination Laws.” You may not end up agreeing with him, but the points he makes are worth considering.

LOL, so which is it, do you want me to tell you something or are you done conversing with me? You’re not exactly breaking my heart if you stop making your pleas for discrimination.

Dave said ” Are you going to moniter the conversations people have in their homes? Order people to have friends from outside their race? Demand that Orthodox Judaism recognize marriage with non-Jews?”.

No, none of that. People are allowed all of the freedom of association they want in their private lives. I will require businesses that make a profit off of the public to give something in return for that priviledge. Businesses must support the goals of a just and fair society by providing service to all citizens and employment to any citizen capable of doing the best job regardless of irrelevant characteristics like being gay, black, or jewish.

Dave said “A business is not some official action of society. It exists for the benefit of the business owner.”.

Once again, no business gets the priviledge of profitting off of society without owing some obligation in return, life is not a one way street where all the rights rest with the individual and none with society.

Dave said “Christopher Hitchens could just as easily say â€˜religion has no place in a just societyâ€™ as a reason for ending freedom of religion.”.

Christopher Hitchens said no such thing, and nor would he. People are free to have there religion or any ohter action as long as they are not hurting others. That is the basis for a moral and just society.

Dave said “Selling someone a bottle of aspirin, for example, is hardly the same sort of association as employing and working with someone.”.

Earlier you were asserting that employers should be allowed to refuse non-essential services to whomever they want. You yourself were suggesting that freedom of association means business owners should be allowed to discriminate against customers as they pleased. Fortunately the principles of non-discrimination are well established in law and although they may not yet include gays they are never going away and the idea that they should will always remain a fringe viewpoint.

I said â€œOnce you establish a pattern of refusing service to people based on innate characteristics you start down a slippery slope to injustice and bigotry.â€

Dave replied “That would be the business ownerâ€™s problem as heâ€™s the one doing the refusing.”.

Excuse me?! Your claiming that being refused service or employment is not a problem for the one rejected? That’s preposterous and serves to characterize your entire viewpoint on the issue of discrimination.

Dave said “The worry that most people are bigots is inherent in your desire to intrude into the hiring practices of private entities”.

I never said most people were bigots. You whine about me not respecting you, how about you respect me by not assigning to me views I’ve never stated and don’t hold.

I said â€œYour â€œfreedom of associationâ€ is a euphemism for bigoted discrimination.â€

Dave replied “Thatâ€™s like saying that freedom of speech is a euphemism for spouting bigotry. Freedom of speech can be used to support bigotry; it can equally well be used to condemn bigotry. Freedom of association is likewise morally neutral.”.

You referred to “freedom of association” specifically in the context of refusing employment and service to gays, blacks, and jews. That specifically is a euphemism for bigoted discrimination.

Dave said “I donâ€™t believe in justice because I disagree with you?”.

Nonsense, I never said any such thing. You don’t believe in justice because you think business owners should be able to deny service and employment to gays, blacks, and jews not because of any definciency in them as customers or employees, but because of irrelevant characteristics.

Idealogically, I tend towards a libertarian viewpoint. I’m inclined to think that in an age of internet where information can flow like water, those who engage in discriminatory hiring practices would soon reap the harvest that they sowed.

But I can also see that it can benefit a society to take drastic short-term actions to break an entrenched system that effectively functions to keep a subset of the population in permanent oppression. If they are denied the ability to gain skills or to prove themselves and they have no power to impact those denying them, then society may elect to step in.

In other words, while I am not a champion of permanent non-discrimination laws, such laws have allowed oppressed minorities the opportunity to succeed in areas that the greater society had collectively barred from them. I think that such oppression does still exist, but that the continued usefulness of such laws is diminishing. I look forward to the day when discrimination based on race or sex or other attributes will be so arcane that discrimination would sound as peculiar as, “they won’t advance me because my grandparents were Polish”, or “they fired me because I have a cat”.

Nevertheless, if we are to have non-discrimination laws in place, it is the height of ridiculous bigotry to say that one of the groups most targeted for discrimination in employment and housing should be excluded from the list while others are included.

In most states you cannot refuse housing because someone is Catholic or because they are American Indian or because they were born in Belize. But you can refuse gay people. This is just irrational and the fact that this protection is not uniform to other classes of discrimination that ARE protected suggests to me that the reasons for excluding sexual orientation are based in prejudice.

Those paying careful attention will notice that Jim’s commentary was not an appeal to anti-discrimination laws. It was, rather, the exposure of a hypocrisy.

Some in the Yes on 8 Campaign and in the Mormon Church have expressed outrage that gay patrons would boycott a business whose profits funded the effort. They said it went “too far” to refuse to work with an Artistic Director that gave $1,000 to the effort.

“I personally am glad that we live in a country where firing someone or not hiring them on the basis of race, religion, national origin, sex or disability is illegal.”

Good for you. I am personally not glad.

Such laws only perpetuate the notion that we are a nation of bigoted jerks. No business owner operating under them can ever prove he isn’t a bigot as he only employs those different from himself because the government is making him.

And no, I’m not David Benkopf.

Should I entertain further conversation with someone who begins one by calling me a “sockpuppet” and continues it by lying about me?

“Dave isnâ€™t terribly persuasive in the way he articulates his position”

I was contrasting the way protestors are making demands on others with the way an employer made an employment decision for himself. A full defense of freedom of association in employment would be going of on a tangent. (Which is what happened anyway.)

Some in the Yes on 8 Campaign and in the Mormon Church have expressed outrage that gay patrons would boycott a business whose profits funded the effort. They said it went â€œtoo farâ€ to refuse to work with an Artistic Director that gave $1,000 to the effort.

But, to date, Iâ€™ve not heard of anyone fired for simply voting Yes.

If you are saying it is better to force a resignation over a donation than it is to fire someone over a vote, you are making a distinction without a difference.

The employer mentioned here doesn’t represent all Mormons nor all of the Yes on 8 or Yes on 102 crowd; you shouldn’t act like he does. One instance of a Mormon letting go of an employee he no longer feels comfortable working with does not demonstrate the existance of a concerted effort by Mormons or other pro-traditional marriage types to go after the jobs of No on 8/102 supporters.

You, who decries the firing of a gay marriage supporter, have no sympathy for Eckern who was forced to resign by the No on 8 crowd.

I thought it hypocritical of Jim to complain about the firing while giving tacit support to the CMT and El Coyote affairs, hence my first comment. Jim never responded to it.

On the topic of responses:

You didn’t answer my question on the original thread. You didn’t answer it when I asked it here. This gave the impression that you were ignoring it. When your only reply is that I’m treating you like a servant, I know you are ignoring it.

This is a habit of yours, Tim. I bring up something you don’t want to deal with and you ignore it. When I point out you’re ignoring it, you respond with some snarky comment. Charming and very mature to be sure.

Your argument would only be valid if we lived in a society with a level playing field to begin with. You obviously do not belong to a racial group that has been systematically oppressed and discriminated against since the founding of our country.

It is very easy to take the intellectual position that employers should be able to discriminate on the basis or race, religion or whatever they chose, but you wouldn’t hold on long to that position if you were repeatedly denied jobs and promotions because of your race. If your family couldn’t feed itself, because nobody would even consider hiring you because of your race.

I generally find this particular intellectual position most prevalent among those in our society who feel the least threatened and have the least to lose should we gradually revert back to a 1950’s or before mentality.

My argument about how these laws perpetuate the ‘Americans are bigots’ stereotype has nothing whatsoever to do with how level a playing field we have now or had in the past. Your bringing the matter up only helps to make my point.

“You obviously do not belong to a racial group that has been systematically oppressed and discriminated against since the founding of our country. “

Here again you help my case, not yours. You assume the country to be permantly divided into a victim class and a victimizer class.

For the record, the ethnic groups to which I belong are not subject to real discrimination nowadays, but the past is a different matter.

Of course this says nothing about how I might be treated unfairly over other factors, but then you seem to have no interest.

“you wouldnâ€™t hold on long to that position … If your family couldnâ€™t feed itself, because nobody would even consider hiring you because of your race.”

During the height of Jim Crow it wasn’t impossible for black Americans to feed themselves and their families. What is this? Militant paranoia?

“I generally find this particular intellectual position most prevalent among those in our society who feel the least threatened and have the least to lose should we gradually revert back to a 1950â€™s or before mentality.”

Even if I didn’t think I had anything to lose by reverting to the attitudes of the 1950s or earlier I still wouldn’t want to. But I’m not afraid of this happening because it isn’t going to happen!

If paranoia is all you have to justify denying freedom of association to employers, then you really have no justification at all.

I feel discrimination in employment should remain illegal in the US. You would like to either decriminalize or legalize such discrimination. I have little reason to believe that my view will change during my lifetime. You have a very high mountain to climb convincing the general American pulic to make it legal again to discriminate in employment. Good luck in you Quixotic quest.

What? Now we take an email as fact? This woman or man for all we know, could have just fabricated this email.

I mean, LDS CPA firm? The Church doesn’t run any CPA firms. If this woman was clearly fired because of her vote then she has the legal right to take this Knucklehead CPA to court and get a nice little compensation for discrimination.

We have no idea if this woman was a good worker or was already on her way out. maybe she was trying to force her voice on others or disparaging others for their points of view, which is a firable offense.

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.